24/1 UK: Stop the pro-Israel lobby

Stop the pro-Israel lobby


The ‘consultation’ on a statutory lobby register may be a window of opportunity

by Stuart Littlewood

The Queen, and last Royal Yacht
The Queen needs a new royal yacht. But the British government says it can’t afford to buy her one. The £80 million for the project must come from private sources.

“Leading British companies will… be asked to donate funds in exchange for naming rights to various decks and facilities on board,” says The Guardian. Does this mean Her Majesty will be seen entertaining in the Goldman Sachs stateroom and sipping daiquiris on the Starbucks sun-deck? Will she shelter from squalls in the Murdoch salon and arrive and depart via the Revlon helipad?

The last royal yacht, Britannia, was a highly successful tool for promoting Great Britain Limited. That being the case, such an important national asset ought to be government funded, not sponsored by tacky brand names.

£80 million is chickenfeed in the great scheme of things. Why are we so hard up that there’s not enough in the public purse to pay for a new boat for our beloved sovereign? One reason, of course, is because for years we’ve been suckered into joining the United States in fighting Israel’s wars of aggression. Given our huge debts it beggars belief that we’re gearing up for another one… this time against Iran… and pushing the oil markets to the edge of panic.

Opening of new MOD Middle Eastern training facilities at Stanta in Thetford Forest, Norfolk which consist of a rural village and urban complex designed by OPTAG to train troops heading to Afghanistan Photo: ALBANPIX
Haven’t we had our fill of warmongering idiocy?

War fever was magnified at the weekend with an announcement that the Ministry of Defence had splashed out another £14 million on building a replica Middle East village in Thetford Forest for training our troops. It’s complete with shops, fully furnished homes, the stench of rotting meat and a bomb survivor with limbs blown off.

The site was originally a replica Nazi village built in 1942, but that was training for a war of a very different kind… a war in defence of our realm and for our very survival.

Why do we get dragged into these illegal and inhuman expeditions to devastate countries that are no threat to us? Because a team of Israel-firsters in our midst think it’s smart to promote the ambitions of a foreign power at the expense of our own national interest and everyone else’s. They have taken command and control of our country by infiltrating the highest levels of government. For example they hold the key jobs in the Foreign Office.

Britain Plotting with Israel to attack Iran
Our watchdogs ought to have booted them out for violating the sacred principles of conduct in public life, but these leeches are now permanently attached while the dogs are de-fanged and petted.

I can imagine just how robustly the criminal regime in Israel is reprimanded by prime minister David Cameron, a self-declared Zionist, by foreign secretary William Hague, an avid fan of Israel since his teenage years, by Alistair Burt a former officer of the Conservative Friends of Israel and now minister for Middle East affairs, and by Ambassador Gould in Tel Aviv who I’m told is the first Jew appointed to that post.

The proposed lobby register
Our coalition government has just provided a glimmer of hope for a solution – an unintended consequence no doubt – by releasing a woolly discussion document on proposals for a statutory register of lobbyists. This is part of a promise to clean up politics and provide greater transparency in the wake of scandals that destroyed the last shred of public confidence in our political system.

The government defines lobbyists as ‘those who seek to influence or change government policy on behalf of a third party’. The document itself says that a register should include information about the names of individual lobbyists and lobbying firms and the names of their clients. “In addition, we propose that the register should include whether a lobbyist was previously a Government Minister or a Senior Civil Servant. The Government does not propose that any information on meetings should be included in a register.”

However, only third-party lobbying firms will have to declare their clients and record former ministers and government officials they have on their books. Firms employing in-house lobbyists needn’t register at all.

The register should also offer the same transparency as provided for Ministers, special advisers and senior officials. The recent Fox-Werrity outrage showed how unreliable that is. It took determined digging by a retired former ambassador to shine light into the dark and sinister corners of that affair.

Tamasin Cave from the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency, an organisation representing a number of charities, unions and campaign groups, said the proposals “are fundamentally flawed and have the lobbyists’ fingerprints all over them. We need a statutory register to require lobbyists to reveal who is lobbying whom, what they are seeking to influence and how much money they are spending.”

The Independent has already blasted the government for attempting a ‘”whitewash” while campaigners say the move does nothing to clean up the lobby industry’s reputation for forging unhealthy relationships between senior politicians and leading lobbying firms.

Will ministers be required to declare why they are meeting lobbyists or which firms or groups they are representing? Apparently not, says The Independent.

Now’s your chance!
What about those who lobby on behalf of a lawless foreign power? It is vitally important to halt lobby groups like Friends of Israel (Christian, Conservative, Democrats, Labour) in their tracks. Consultation closes on 13 April, so now’s your chance. Members of the public can make their views known to: Statutory Register of Lobbyists, Cabinet Office, Fourth Floor, 1 Horseguards Road, London SW1A 2HQ. Alternatively, email registerlobbyists@cabinet-office.gsi.gov.uk marking your response with ‘Statutory Register of Lobbyists’ in the subject field of your email.

Make sure you let the government know that you know what a rotten, treacherous game they are playing. The three main political parties in the UK each have a ‘Friends of Israel’ group to ensure pro-Israel members are embedded at all levels in the British political establishment and at the very heart of government, no matter who is in power.

Campaigners argue that these placemen inhibit the government when it comes to taking a principled stand on foreign affairs issues and especially on matters relating to Israel’s criminal acts.

Or the unjustified ganging up against Iran.

Gould and Werritty connection
The aim of Friends of Israel is to promote the interests of Israel within the British Parliament. The Israeli regime is racist in its treatment of the Arab population and criminal in its territorial ambitions. The manifestos of Israel’s political parties are horrific. MPs who align themselves with Israel and endorse its practices are contradicting our own anti-racist laws and international and human rights laws.

Should MPs and ministers be acting on behalf of a foreign military power at the expense of our own interests and security? Of course not. They are expressly forbidden to let outside influence cloud their judgment. To do so would breach the second of the Seven Principles of Public Life, namely Integrity – “Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organizations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties.”

Yet Friends of Israel lobby groups go to great lengths to influence those in power. Some say that FoI membership is a necessary passport to high office.

But the man in the street is entitled to look at the Seven Principles of Public Life and say that the activities of lobbies like Friends of Israel are against the intentions, both in word and spirit, of those Principles. Disgraced defence secretary Dr Liam Fox was quoted on the Conservative Friends of Israel website as saying: “…We must remember that in the battle for the values that we stand for, for democracy against theocracy, for democratic liberal values against repression – Israel’s enemies are our enemies and this is a battle in which we all stand together or we will all fall divided.” This was when his party was in opposition. Fox presumably spoke for all Friends of Israel in his party (that’s 80 percent of Conservative MPs according to some claims) who were hoping to form the next government. He would have Parliament and the country believe that Israel’s enemy, Iran, must become Britain’s enemy – the sort of dangerous nonsense that could lead our nation to disaster and once again cause hundreds of thousands of innocent people to be shredded and incinerated… Don’t his sort ever learn?

And seldom do FoI members declare an interest when speaking or writing about the Middle East. That is unacceptable in the ‘Mother of Parliaments’.

In the United States there are growing calls for the Israel lobby AIPAC, which is so super-powerful that it calls the shots in Congress and has presidential candidates grovelling to Israel’s agenda, to be classified as an agent of a foreign power and treated accordingly.

Double standards prevail

Flotilla: The Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (left), takes over from the USS John C. Stennis in the Arabian Sea.

The USS Abraham Lincoln later led the convoy through the Strait of Hormuz yesterday

British warship: HMS Argyll, the Type 23 frigate, which joined the U.S. vessels (file photo)

Under pressure: USS John C. Stennis (L) and USS Abraham Lincoln (R) pictured last week. Yesterday they passed through the strait. Today the EU are expected to impose an oil embargo. Credit images : dailymail,uk


The British government ordered a warship to join the US flotilla steaming through the Strait of Hormuz “to underline the unwavering international commitment to maintaining rights of passage under international law”. It’s a response to Iran’s threat to close that seaway if the West imposes an oil embargo.

Royal Navy ships have been patrolling there continuously since the 1980s, but brave Britain hasn’t lifted a finger to keep the sea lanes to Gaza open in response to Israel’s endless illegal blockade and brutal assaults on Gaza’s fishermen and peaceful humanitarian vessels trying to reach the besieged population with aid.

And yesterday the EU announced an embargo on Iranian oil exports, which Britain had been pressing for. It is horribly reminiscent of the bully-boy tactics of the early 1950s, when Britain and America engineered a similar embargo and brought Iran to its knees in order to overthrow the democratic government of Dr Mossadeq and reinstate the hated Shah and his secret police. Why? Because Iran wanted to control its own oil and Britain and the US didn’t like that.

This latest move amounts to another direct attack on Iran’s economic lifeline and smacks of collective punishment and economic terrorism. It will cause hardship to ordinary citizens and further hostility throughout the Islamic world. Nothing pleases Israel more, but why are we so eager to dance to Israel’s tune and damage ourselves in the eyes of world opinion?

Hague said: “Today’s sanctions show how serious EU member states are about preventing nuclear proliferation…” But he and the EU are not in the least serious about nuke-bristling Israel’s refusal to sign up to, or even discuss, non-proliferation. No sanctions there.

Meanwhile hard-pressed British and European motorists are likely to pay a heavy price for this tomfoolery when oil prices rocket. And we are still waiting for proof that Iran has actually done something wrong, are we not? Where does Hague think he’s leading us?

Notice too how the British government’s broadcast regulator has chosen this moment to silence PressTV, Iran’s English-language broadcaster in the UK, by revoking its license and thus suppressing the other side of the story. PressTV was an inconvenient voice that ruffled too many fine feathers among Britain’s bloodthirsty elite. Truth and free speech, as usual, are the first casualties in softening up the public for war.

Author: Stuart Littlewood / http://www.radiofreepalestine.org.uk.

Editing: Debbie Menon



January 24, 2012 – 11:18 am
How UK’s national debt has ballooned to a staggering new record (hits £1 trillion)

1. Debt equal to £16,072 for every man, woman and child in Britain
2.The UK now owes at £1,003.9bn or 64.2% of GDP
3.Monthly public sector borrowing fell by £2.2bn in December to £13.7bn
4. UK growth forecasts downgraded to 0.6%

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2091039/UK-national-debt-hits-staggering-new-record-1TRILLION.html#ixzz1kPAPjgEJ

Log in to Reply Ann
January 24, 2012 – 7:36 pm
The UK has been under the control of intruders since the proto-zionist Dutch central bankers planned the execution of King Charles1 and the takeover of the debt-free English treasury, control of the people, and full control of their new errand boys, the British army and navy. How do you suppose a good for nothing, ignorant, psychopathic, serial killer and traitor like Cromwell could all of a sudden come up with the money to fund an army of foreign mobs and the brains to betray and fatally ensnare the King?

And recall if you will the ill-fated mid-19th century British foray into Afghanistan, what was all that about? How did it serve England? What where you taught in school? It was the Rothschilds using the British army ( as usual ) to find a way into Russia through its massive southern border. They were hell bent on taking down Russia even then, but they were always too weak to fight their own battles, so through complete control of money and military they got the Brits to do their dirty work for them and walk into certain death just looking for some unguarded pass or entry.

Nevermind that the Afghanis attacked and killed the intruders, British blood meant nothing to the Roth Roaches then and even less now. They pullled off two world war hoaxes and got the whole world to believe the alibi, so why would they stop now? With all due respect for those who serve, fight, and die under the British flag, British forces are ultimately under the control of those who have no respect for them nor loyalty to England. They’re not even Brits.

And remember that Queen Victoria had several attempts on her life – two of them were shooters, both were caught and released – does that not strike you as odd? Really, caught and released? After getting that close to the Empress? Who made the phonecall? Perhaps she expressed disapproval or refusal about something so someone set up a friendly reminder as to who was really in charge?

If you want to resolve the present you must unravel the past. And I mean The Past. Newspaper articles do not have the answers, and the current governing structures are set up to feed parasites, not benefit the citizens of the nations under their control, so don’t be surprised that they strip their workers of any and all assets.





Dale Thorn · Kent State 1970
Being under the thumb of this foreign parasite is humiliating for an American. I was wrong about JFK being the turning point of everything – Carto was right – the Holocaust, or rather the usage of that term and its associated baggage is the rotten apple that’s turned everything else rotten.



2 responses to “24/1 UK: Stop the pro-Israel lobby



    The UK has been under the control of intruders since the proto-zionist Dutch central bankers planned the execution of King Charles1 and the takeover of the debt-free English treasury, control of the people, and full control of their new errand boys, the British army and navy. How do you suppose a good for nothing, ignorant, psychopathic, serial killer and traitor like Cromwell could all of a sudden come up with the money to fund an army of foreign mobs and the brains to betray and fatally ensnare the King?


  2. In the weeks that followed, my English newspapers, every day, were filled with outraged cries about the maltreatment of the Jews, with appeals to help them. You would have thought, to read these papers, that Jews everywhere were on the run, being beaten up, robbed, murdered. Here in Prague, an hour from Hitler, I saw them every day and every night, dancing in the more expensive bars, lolling in the arm-chairs of the more expensive hotels, thronging the cafés, enjoying life, no wit less aggressive, monopolistic, loudly self-important, than they had ever been. Is London different? It was not when I was there.

    The contrast between these two pictures, the one I saw with my own eyes and the one my newspapers gave me, was very great. My English newspapers hardly spared a crumb of compassion for the Czech and German refugees from the Sudeten lands, whose numbers were twenty times as great as those of the Jews, and showed little concern for the continued murder of women and children in Spain and China.

    I began to suspect the motives for the outcry about the Jews. Here, it seemed to me, was the fellow-feeling of privileged classes at work again. I was glad when, as one still small voice in all this deafening chorus of generous but ill-apportioned indignation, The Times published a letter from a man who had been its Special Correspondent in China under the heading ‘Brutality and Suffering – The Inconsistencies of Compassion’.

    This letter said that the German Government’s measures against the Jews had ‘revolted the world’. This time, added the letter, the world, so often revolted, had expressed its feelings in action – for once. The British Government was finding territorial asylum for refugees, the American Government had recalled its Ambassador from Berlin, and so on and so on.

    But, said the letter, this made it difficult for people who looked farther afield than Europe to keep a sense of proportion. The sufferings which Hitler had inflicted on half a million people were terrible; but they were negligible compared with the sufferings which the Japanese army was inflicting on the Chinese people. In China nearly a million men had been killed or disabled — killed or disabled, nearly a million men — and the Japanese had butchered several tens of thousands of civilians, and had rendered destitute and homeless some 30,000,000 more. It would be surprising if 2,000,000 or 3,000,000, mostly old people and children, did not die in the winter of 1938-39. The cases of rape and beating were scarcely worth mentioning in this holocaust.

    The obligations of the British Government, by the written word and in the name of humanity, were the same in the one case as the other, said the writer, and he found the world’s conscience ‘a puzzling organism’.

    Does it regard [he asked] 100 dead or destitute Chinese as equivalent to one persecuted Jew, and may we then expect, when Japan’s victims top the 50,000,000 mark, to see Ambassadors withdrawn from Tokyo and international action taken to make life possible for the refugees? Or is it simply that the Jews are near at hand and the Chinese far off and yellow at that?’

    That is the question asked by this man, who knew his subject, on behalf of millions of Chinese, and it is the question I ask on behalf of hundreds of thousands of Czechs, Germans, and Spaniards.

    Just as the Jews tend to monopolize the callings and professions into which they penetrate, when there is no anti-Semitism, so did I find them monopolizing compassion and succour when there was anti-Semitism, and as their numbers are small compared with the great mass of non-Jews who are suffering from brutality and persecution in our times, I thought this to be the old evil, the squeeze-out of non-Jews, breaking out in a new place.

    The organized Jewish communities in the countries where anti-Semitism exists, or which it is approaching, have complete command of the technique of enlisting foreign help and sympathy. They understand it; this looking across the frontiers is in their blood. If a group of twenty Jews is put into no-man’s-land, the British and American Legations and Consulates in the nearest capital are stormed, the British newspaper offices too, the next day the entire British and American Press rings with the story, photographs appear, bishops write letters, committees get busy, soon the Jews are released and are on their way to a new land.

    Not far away 300 or 400 non-Jewish refugees may be starving in a hut. They have no organized community to care for them, to raid the Legations and newspaper offices on their behalf, nobody visits them, nobody knows that they are there or cares about them. They may rot.

    I have seen a great deal of the 250,000 refugees in Czechoslovakia, of whom about 15,000 are Jews, and have been dismayed by the way the small Jewish group, containing a fair proportion of comfortably situated people, contrived almost to monopolize foreign attention, while the outer world never heard a word about the young non-Jews, skilled workers and craftsmen, whom I would have paid to go to our colonies, but who were stagnating in hopeless desperation, without any prospect of emigration to a new country or chance of beginning a new life.

    I thought of these things on the evening I spent with Benno Israelovitchsky, in that dance-bar where all the young Jews were enjoying themselves. A very strange thing happened there. These young men were of the type which, as Benno Israelovitchsky had said, had helped to cause anti-Semitism in Berlin. Because he had said that, I wondered that he himself spent so much time and money in these places, behaved so ostentatiously. Was he any different, I thought?

    By chance I was able to answer that question. Benno Israelovitchsky, having a little drink taken, was in high good humour, danced with his friend, and, as he passed the violinist, slipped into his hand what seemed to be money, a twenty or fifty kronen note. The man bowed his thanks, unrolled it – and found a blank piece of paper. It was Benno Israelovitchsky’s little joke. As he came waltzing round again the young man said quietly to him, ‘Only a Jew would do that’.

    Immediately there was a fierce altercation. The manager came and separated the two men. Benno Israelovitchsky went off with him to his office. When he returned he said triumphantly, ‘I’ll show him. His contract is going to be terminated at the end of the month. “Only a Jew would do that.” And how often have I given that fiddler fifty crowns?’

    With the synagogues burning an hour away!

    Benno Israelovitchsky often telephoned to me after that. I was never at home. He may have wondered why.

    A few days later I went to L., a Czechoslovak town hard against the new German frontier, to see the refugees from the area seized by Germany. On my many expeditions to the refugees, most miserable of human beings, I always noticed the same thing. As you approached the area an implacable funnel took hold of you and led you straight to the Jewish refugees.

    On this occasion I was led at once to the Jewish refugees. There were thirteen of them. They were in a miserable plight, but their number was thirteen. In that same town were thousands of Czech, hundreds of German refugees. Their plight was in many cases worse, because nobody cared about them. Nobody ever went to see them. No foreign newspapers raised a clamour of protest and appeal in their behalf. No bishops prayed for them. They and their children were left to almost-starvation, to tuberculosis and scrofula, to death. Only with diligence and perseverance did I succeed in finding them.

    Listen to my talk with Pan Julius Malychek, the head of the Jewish community in the district.

    Julius Malychek told me of the lot of the Jewish emigrants. On the evening of the synagogue-burning day a group of twenty had been dumped down in no-man’s-land, between the provisional new frontiers, that peace-time no-man’s-land, with its hunted and fear-haunted human beings, which is the achievement of peace-with-honour at Munich and of our shining contemporary civilization.

    As soon as word came that they were there, the Jewish organization in the neighbouring town sprang to life like a well-tended motor when you step on the starter. Tents, straw, blankets and provisions were sent out to them and Julius Malychek spent every moment of his waking day in his efforts on their behalf. He contrived to gain German permission for their return to their homes and relatives. A few days later a second group of about twenty was dumped down at the frontier. The Germans were implacable and would not take them back. Julius Malychek, tireless in his efforts, succeeded in gaining the permission of the Czechoslovak authorities for them to be brought in across the frontier and be given a few days’ asylum in Czechoslovakia until Germany allowed them readmittance or they could be sent to some other country. When the term of their asylum was up, and no solution had been found, they suddenly disappeared one night, and are now somewhere in Czechoslovakia, unnoticed aliens. ‘Am I a policeman?’ asked Julius Malychek of me, spreading his hands.

    Then came the third group. This time the Czechoslovak authorities — the local Police Commissioner, whose humanity had been invoked to get the second group that temporary respite, was about to lose his post and pension because of the disappearance of the second group — refused to let them in. Julius Malychek was bitter about this inhumanity.

    This is the background of Julius Malychek’s reflections about the Jewish problem, which are the really important thing. After he had described these events to me I saw on his table an illustrated booklet about the progress made by the Jews in building a modern Jewish settlement at Tel Aviv, in Palestine. I turned the leaves over, admired the pictures of healthy and happy young Jews hard at work building a brave new world, and asked him, ‘What do you think about that?’

    At once he was all enthusiasm. ‘Ah’, he said, ‘if only the men who have the power to solve the problem would realize that this is the only solution. We could settle from seven to eight million Jews there, if a way could be found to placate the Arabs, satisfy their grievances, open the land to us. There are at the outside twenty million Jews in the world’ — this is the figure he gave; I think it an under-estimate — ‘and the problem would exist no longer. Those who wanted to stay in the countries where they then were might be allowed to, on condition that they took its citizenship and the full duties of citizens.

    ‘Their number would then be too small for the evil to rise again. Such a number would be assimilable. Those who felt the pull of Jewish cohesion strong within them and preferred to become avowed citizens of the Jewish National State, Judea, or whatever you like to call it, could go there. The wealthy Jews of the world should be made to help in financing this.

    ‘But the present position is impossible. The Jew is neither assimilable, nor can he go anywhere that belongs to him. His family may live for centuries in this country or that, but suddenly one day he wakes up and finds that he is not a Czech or a Slovak or a German or an Austrian or a Pole – but a Jew, and a Jew with no home. Assimilation is impossible, for all the Jews. What you are doing to-day, once more, is only to plaster over a wound that needs a surgical operation. I myself assert that I am a Czech’ — he did not say ‘I am a Czech’, as I noticed — ‘for my family has lived here for a hundred and fifty years, I fought in the war first with the Austro-Hungarian armies, then with the Czech Legions in Russia against Germany and Austro-Hungary, for the freedom of the Czech nation. I can understand now that anti-Jewish feeling is rising among the Czechs. How could it not, after all that they have been through? As long as they were free they gave us everything. Now they are no longer free themselves, hatred and bitterness against everything is fomenting within them.’

    This was a cry from the heart. On this basis I could have given my hand to Julius Malychek and said ‘Sir, you are my friend and brother, go and live peacefully within the borders of your Jewish state and I should like to think that you would be among the allies of my own country, to fight as a volunteer in your army if some predatory successor of the Turk attacks you. But here, at this moment, you are doing everything you can to monopolize the compassion and contributions and help of the Christian outer world in the interest of your fellow-Jews while a far larger number of non-Jews, within the confines of this your home-town, are in far worse plight. You say you have nowhere to go, but this is not quite true, because the Jew in adversity can always count on the immediate and abundant help of Jews in a neighbouring country, as you yourself are proving at this moment. The non-Jew, in like case, is the most pitiable of creatures, hunted from concentration camp to prison and to destitutes’ home, and with not one single soul in all that outer world who cares the faintest damn about him, and I have just been seeing this with my own eyes.’

    I did ask Julius Malychek about the non-Jewish refugees in that town, but he immediately lost interest, said he now had to go and renew his efforts to melt the hearts of the local authorities, and looked after me with some irritation as he saw that I went away, to visit some more of those destitute Czechs and Germans, in the company of a widow, a most Christian soul, who gave all her time to them. Yet he had asserted that he was a Czech.

    Alas and alack, I see no man or men great enough to realize, accept and boldly state these truths and put an end to what Julius Malychek, in his little Czech town, in a despairing cry, called ‘dieses Ahasvertum’ – the wandering of the Jews, and the destruction of Gentile ideals which it brings with it.

    Hitler could do it, and become the idol of the Jews and turn the tables on those muddle-headed and not really compassionate people in the world who feed their self-esteem, varnish their tarnished reputations for humanity, with loud outcry about the persecution of the Jews. But I don’t think he is great enough to see the opportunity or grasp it. His present greatness, as it seems to me, is only the sum of the littleness of the men who, in many countries, happened to be cast for the other leading parts when he advanced to the front of the world stage.

    Meanwhile the new dispersal is in progress. The Jews are straining every nerve to get from the countries where anti-Semitism is rising to those where it does not now exist or is only latent. Do not think that they have any greater love in their hearts for those countries, or that they will love them when they get there.

    Czechoslovakia, as long as it was free, gave them the most liberal sanctuary. I have not found among them feelings of love or thankfulness for Czechoslovakia. They feel that the time is now come to leave Czechoslovakia and go somewhere else, but somewhere else lies in a world which in its entirety is potentially anti-Jewish, where the same things may happen one day that happened in friendly and lovely and tolerant Germany and Austria. To make hay in those other countries as long as the sun of tolerance shines, but never to forget that the night of anti-Jewish repression will follow, that your hosts of to-day are your potential foes of to-morrow, is the innermost feeling of men who have years and generations of wander, wander, wander in their blood. The one place where they could go, when tired of wandering, and settle for ever, and know certainly that they were at home there and that no enmity to them would ever arise – this one place is denied them.

    All kinds are needed to make a world, but the English world, as it seems to me, has too many of one kind — the under-nourished, unemployed, underpaid, under-housed, unfit and uncared-for — and is for these reasons lopsided. You will not improve this world by allowing hordes of people from abroad to come in, without any safeguard against their activities in your country. If you are really humane and compassionate, as you pretend, mend these conditions first, of which I have nothing further to say for the moment save that they are monstrous, criminal, revolting, and, in the richest country in the world, a bloodstained scandal.

    Or perhaps, as my own language is apt to be timid, colourless and inadequate, I may borrow the words of a correspondent of Hitler’s paper, the Völkischer Beobachter, who said, in writing about England:

    In this country the contrasts between inconceivable wealth and appalling poverty are greater than in any other European land, with the single exception of Spain.

    That is the truth about the richest country in the world.

    I would complete the picture by saying: ‘In England the contrasts between vociferous protestations of humane feeling and cold-blooded inhumanity are greater than in any other European land, without exception.’

    If you want to check that, look at any mid-December issue of The Times, read in one column the tearful appeals for the Jews, in another the appeals of the ‘genuine humanitarians’ for the Spanish war to be quickly ended by starving out the Spanish Republicans, who have fought against two Great Powers and an army of Moors for nearly three years, and by compelling their submission to the Generalissimo who has threatened mass reprisals when he has them in his power.

    Is it wrong, is it anti-Semitism, for an Englishman, in these times, to think these things? Decide for yourself.

    This inhumanity of Englishmen to Englishmen makes me perplexed when I look at England and see the great outburst of indignation, the mass meetings of protest, against the treatment of the Jews in Germany, the appeals for money to succour them, the opening of our doors to their children.

    What is the missing link in this chain of humanity? Why are English people being led once more up the same old garden path? We were told that we must sacrifice Abyssinia, to appease Italy; no compassion for Abyssinians. We were told that we must sacrifice Czechoslovakia, to placate Germany; no compassion for Czechs. We are receiving broad hints that we must sacrifice Spain, to satisfy Germany and Italy; no compassion for Spaniards.




    All kinds are needed to make a world, but the English world, as it seems to me, has too many of one kind — the under-nourished, unemployed, underpaid, under-housed, unfit and uncared-for — and is for these reasons lopsided. You will not improve this world by allowing hordes of people from abroad to come in, without any safeguard against their activities in your country. If you are really humane and compassionate, as you pretend, mend these conditions first, of which I have nothing further to say for the moment save that they are monstrous, criminal, revolting, and, in the richest country in the world, a bloodstained scandal.

    Or perhaps, as my own language is apt to be timid, colourless and inadequate, I may borrow the words of a correspondent of Hitler’s paper, the Völkischer Beobachter, who said, in writing about England:

    In this country the contrasts between inconceivable wealth and appalling poverty are greater than in any other European land, with the single exception of Spain.

    That is the truth about the richest country in the world.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s